Today, we respond to a fellow young-earth creationist (YEC) on the living fossils discussion. Most YECs agree on living fossils, but every now and then a YEC might pop up who disagrees what other YECs are saying. In addition to this, evolutionists will often bring up this disagreements as "proof" that YECs are wrong on the topic, or raise this as an issue to their arguments. One such theistic evolutionist by the name of Dr. Joel Duff who I have had an ongoing debate with since doing my interview with Dr. Carl Werner over "Living Fossils" on "The Genesis Series", an ongoing series on my YouTube channel, Apologetics 101, had presented this article to me as "proof" that I must be "wrong" so I will be responding to this article below.
The article is titled, "Fossil Whoops: The Jurassic Beaver" (as of 09/23/2024) and is found here. The writer's name is Christian Ryan, and like I said, he is a fellow YEC, but like everyone else, sometimes YECs will disagree with one another. He is, according to his bio on the article, a geology study in the undergrad program of South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, and is also an author and science writer. He also appears to be a member of "New Creation" the online publication in which his article appears in.
Below, I will be doing a point-by-point response. Some of this will also follow the responses in my response video series to Dr. Joel Duff as well as the responses made via comments on my channel and Dr. Duff's channel to Dr. Joel Duff and his supporters, while others may be new and isolated more uniquely to Christian from his article. As usual, Christian's words will be red and mine will be blue. I will also follow up my response to Christian's article with a conclusion which will be written in black.
Christian: Most young-earth creationist scientists accept that there is a predictable order to the fossil record. However, some creationists have found this difficult to accept. So instead, they have tried to find evidence that fossils of modern types of lifeforms are mixed in with more ancient fossils, like those from dinosaurs. This article will examine one particular example we will call the “Jurassic beaver” hypothesis.
Brian: Well, we're not off to a good start. This is partially true and partially false. It is true that there is a predictable order to the fossils in the strata and that this order, or pattern, is consisted with many Flood models. However, it would not be true that YECs would only think that Castorocada (the beaver-like mammal) is a "beaver" because they find this Flood-model prediction "difficult to accept" nor is it true this is only taken by such persons. People whom agree with these Flood models, such as Donny Budinsky from Standing for Truth, Dr. Carl Werner, and even Ken Ham and all of Answers in Genesis (AiG) accepts the living fossils argument as well.
His reference to the "Jurassic beaver hypothesis" comes from the headlines of a news articles which identified it as a "Jurassic Beaver" but this doesn't mean that they or others accept it as a beaver necessarily, only that the fossils showed similarities with a modern beaver. It also doesn't mean it doesn't have differences. This may come up later.
Christian: At New Creation, we believe that the events and timeline described in the Book of Genesis are the best explanation for the scientific evidence in the world around us.
Brian: I agree with this statement. Just to reiterate, we both hold similar interpretations of Genesis, so our views of Genesis are not on the table in this response. I agree whole heartedly with that statement with one caveat: I would say that all scientific evidence should be interpret through the lens of Scripture. All science finds its foundations in Scripture, so we do not let the scientific evidence interpret Scripture. The Bible doesn't become the Word of God only if we find scientific evidence that supports its claims, but rather it is the Word of God, and all scientific evidence should be judged by Scripture, not the other way around. With that said, I, too, find that the all scientific evidence is consistent with Scripture because all of science finds its foundation in Scripture, so this should not be surprising at all. The Bible is the lens by which all scientific evidence should be judged. God doesn't answer to scientists, it is scientists that answer to Him.
Christian: However, many popular arguments used in favor of this perspective often fall scripturally or scientifically short.
Brian: Again, I agree, but our views in Genesis nor the scientific evidence's agreement with Genesis, is not on the table in this response. I have a feeling the article is fixing to go downhill from here.
Christian: Meanwhile, many critiques from our opponents also misunderstand the raw data or our young-earth history model. Interestingly, fossils are a favorite topic of both parties.
Brian: Also, agree.
Christian: This article marks the first in an intermittent series we are calling Fossil Whoops.
Brian: If they have other articles, I have not found them yet. Dr. Joel Duff, who had sent this link to me as one of the comments, and who also carries this link on his website, had told me that this had only come out a few days ago, so my guess is the second part of this hasn't come out yet. I will consider a "Part 2" of this article when it does, but until then, my current intentions is just to respond to this article at present.
Christian: We will address common fossil-related misconceptions and explain why they do not hold up. We also aim to provide a more accurate, Genesis-friendly understanding of the subject.
Brian: And I will respond accordingly. That last statement suggest a response that is not hostile to neither the Bible in general, or Genesis specifically. Of this, I'm glad, because critics are harsher and have a tendency to bring up a bunch of other subjects they also disagree with you on. I have a strong feeling that he will be approaching this topic in a way that's more accepting of Genesis and the Bible and not in a volatile way.
Christian: This Fossil Whoops focuses on a little extinct animal called Castorocauda, discovered in Jurassic rock layers in China in 2006.
Brian: This is correct. Castorocada is the name given to the mammal-like fossil found in the strata layer called the Jurassic layer, and it was found in China. People began to notice features about this fossil that had similarities to a modern beaver. Much of what we are going to discussed is going to be centered around this fossil and its similarities and differences.
Christian: If this creature is truly a beaver, it would be an extraordinary find. Traditionally, most mammals from dinosaur-bearing fossils are small and shrew-like.
Brian: Agreed.
Christian: Yet recent discoveries, like Repenomamus, a predator of small dinosaurs...
Brian: This is the Tasmanian Devil-like mammal.
Christian: ...and Volaticotherium, a gliding mammal...
Brian: The flying squirrel-like mammal.
Christian: ...show a surprising diversity of Mesozoic mammals. While these creatures don’t belong to modern mammal groups...
Brian: This assumes the way in which people have classified them with our modern classification system. Some have opted to classify them as "mammaliaforms" which are similar to mammals but they are said to lack certain things that are characterized by modern mammals such as three bones in their inner ear, fur, a neocortex around their brains, mammalian glands, and complex teeth. If they fail to find fossilized evidence for even one of these things, they classify it as a mammaliaform which is not considered to be a "mammal" within the modern classification system.
However, one cannot hold to this consistently. In truth, there are certain things that don't fossilized such as brains and glands. There would be no way to know for sure if the animal in question held these things while it was alive. We have mammals found in the strata, but do not have all of these characteristics, but are classified as mammals. Why do they have no problem with classifying these as such? Because they are not being found in the same strata layers as the dinosaurs.
The reason they don't classify them as mammals is really circular. Ultimately, it comes down to their presuppositions about the "evolution" of the animals within the strata layers. Since they think Mammaliaforms had "evolved" into mammals they classify them as such to escape the idea that mammals had lived with dinosaurs. Now, rather or not Castorocada is a beaver or not remains to be seen, but I do think it was at least a mammal. It has all of the characteristics of a mammal that had been fossilized or that is visible. Some argue against this because they claim it lacks the inner ear bones, but you can't tell that from the fossil. The fossil is encased in rock and its ears are not visible on it. That seems to be assumed because we cannot view its inner ear, so it is from the lack of evidence not from the evidence.
Christian: ...they reveal that mammals came in many more shapes and sizes than once thought.
Brian: This was realized by the secular scientists and other evolutionists, but I'm not sure why that would be surprising to them since mammals today come in all shapes and sizes, and mammals within the fossil record do as well. From mammals as small as mice and rats to mammals as big as elephants and hippos. We even know that mammals got as big as mammoths which are related to the elephants. We've known for awhile that mammals came in all shapes and sizes, both present-day mammals and the ones in the fossil record. What surprised them most, I think, was finding these things in the fossil record along the same strata as dinosaurs.
Christian: So is Castorocauda really a beaver?
Brian: This is a fair question, but it only assumes two answers: 1) It's a beaver, and 2) it's not a beaver. However, there's a third option: 3) We don't know if it's a beaver or not. This is where both I and Dr. Carl Werner, the author of the book, "Living Fossils" and founder of "The Grand Experiment", leans toward. It has similarities to a beaver which everyone agrees with. It also holds some similarities to other animals (seal-like teeth, webbed feet like a duckbill platypus, although its webbed feet are on its hindfeet like a beaver's webbed feet, and a beaver-like tail). However, it does appear to have more in common with a beaver (a beaver-like tail, webbed hindfeet like a beaver's, fur, and is semiaquatic, all features of a beaver.
Dr. Carl Werner had told me that this was one of the fossils he wasn't allowed to see, examined, or photographed. In fact, no one is allowed to see it nor examine it. Without a side-by-side comparison we won't know for sure if it's beaver-likeness is due to it being a beaver or mere similarities to one. This is why Dr. Werner is unsure if it is or not, and why I am as well. The author's of the paper that Christian is fixing to discuss were also not allowed to view the fossil. The only live photograph they have of it on their paper is the same partial, nonresolution photograph that's floating around on the Internet. The one I have at the beginning of this article is the same photo (not from the paper) but is of a higher resolution than the typical one floating around the internet, and I can do a Zoom-enhanced with this one. You can find that photo here. Besides that, the authors of that paper used drawings, so they weren't allowed to examine either. No one is.
If people knew that fact, how many positions would change? Would evolutionists who are dogmatic that it's not a beaver be less dogmatic about it if they knew that they were just taking the word of other evolutionists who had also not seen the actual fossil but was taking the words of others as well? Since evolutionists are use to taking the word of other evolutionists, I suppose many of them would not change their minds. What about YECs? Would they be less dogmatic that it's a beaver? What about Christian here, who's both a YEC and someone who agrees with the evolutionists' dogmatic position? Would he change what he thought if he knew that no one was allowed to examine the fossil? I don't know, but we'll see.
My thoughts on it is that I'm uncertain if it's a beaver or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, maybe it's related to a beaver, I don't know, but it does seem to have similarities to one. Everyone seems to agree with that. This is all that Dr. Werner is saying, which everyone agrees with anyhow, so Dr. Werner is not making some radical statement here on it. It takes an extra step in either direction to claim it's a beaver or not, and as we should see, Christian takes a dogmatic step toward what the evolutionists think.
Christian: Hailing from the Middle Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Inner Mongolia, Castorocauda was about the size of a platypus. Its fossils remain in very excellent condition. This gives scientists a good idea about what it looked like and how it may have behaved.
Brian: Most of this I would agree with except that last statement. We have no idea how it had behaved without being there. We can make interpretations, drawn from certain physiological inferences from the fossil such as what it ate from the architecture of its teeth, any food preserved in it's belly, or its webbed hindfeet meaning it was semiaquatic. That last one is a reasonable assumption, but an assumption none the less. The only real way we can know what it ate is as if it's contents was fossilized in its belly like Repenomamus with the baby Velociraptor, and unless we have a lot preserved in its belly, we'd only know what it can eat not what it normally eats, and certainly what it ate before it died. It's teeth shape can be the most misleading thing of all, but we'll cover that later.
As far as the condition of the fossil, I would mostly agree with this, except the fossil is broke in half in the only known photograph of it, and the bottom half isn't visible in the photo. Overall, however, the fossil looks pretty well-preserved.
Christian: Its body was covered in fur, just like many mammals today.
Brian: Yes, multiple layers of fur were found preserved in the fossil. This was a most amazing find indeed since this rarely happens, and, if I'm not mistaken, this is the "earliest" preservation of fur in a fossil known. Fur is one of the features required for a mammal (see my list of criteria above).
Christian: Its broad, flattened tail was covered in a scale-like texture, not unlike the tail of a beaver.
Brian: This is interesting since Dr. Joel Duff, who promotes this article on his website and presented it to me, thinks its tail has more in common with a river otters' tail. Although both tail types are similar, its shape, coupled with its small size, seems more indicative of a beaver's tail. However, what is really surprising is the combination of the webbed hindfeet with the beaver-like tail. River otter's have webbed feet too, but all four of their feet are webbed, whereas only the hindfeet of the beaver is webbed, and so was Castorocauda's hindfeet where no evidence exist for its front feet being webbed.
Christian: Fossilized remnants of skin between the toes of its hind feet suggest they were webbed.
Brian: This is correct. Skin found fossilized between the digits of its hindfeet is powerful evidence for its hindfeet being webbed. This is also a similar feature to a beaver, since it's hind feet are webbed also. A number of animals have webbed feet, including ducks and geese, but among mammals this is rare. It's rare for a mammal to have webbed feet, but its even rarer for them to have webbed hindfeet. Duckbill platypus and river otter's are examples of mammals that have all four feet that are webbed and Kangaroos and beavers would be example of only two feet that are webbed. However, Kangaroos only have two feet, and beavers have four. Moles have four webbed feet as well. Beavers' hindfeet being webbed is quite unusual and so Castorocauda's hindfeet matching that of a beaver's is most interesting indeed.
Christian: This is a very useful trait for an animal spending much of its time in the water, as scientists believe Castorocauda did.
Brian: Indeed, since it would've aided in swimming. However, without the evidence of the webbed feet, there would be nothing at all to indicate that it spent any time in the water. One can easily make a reasonable assumption from its webbed feet that it spent at least some of its time in the water.
Christian: In many ways, this creature probably behaved much like a modern platypus. It would have spent much of its time in the water, occasionally crawling back onto dry land for a break.
Brian: Maybe, but there's no way to tell that from its webbed feet nor anything else for that matter. Without being there to observe it in its natural habitat all you can do is make assumptions. The fact that it spent, at least, some of its time in the water on land and some of it in the water is a reasonable assumption. Its hindfeet are webbed while its front feet are not. However, can you determine from this that it behaved like a platypus, spending most of its time in the water and only, occasionally, crawling back on land? I don't think you can go that far with your assumptions. Fossils are highly interpretive because we have to make inferences from very limited evidence while possessing limited knowledge, without seeing these animals as they existed way back when. This is a serious leap in logic on Christian's part. As a YEC, he should've known how interpretive fossils were and that we apply our assumptions to the fossil evidence.
Christian: The announcement of Castorocauda’s discovery hit the public in the form of popular science articles. These headlines dubbed it the “Jurassic beaver.” This has led some people to suggest that this animal did not merely have some beaver-like characteristics. Rather, they argue that the animal itself was beaver-like. Or even actually a beaver, not unlike the ones building dams, chewing down trees, and swimming in our ponds today. The discovery of a modern beaver in Jurassic layers alongside dinosaurs would be an unprecedented discovery.
Brian: That's not the reason people came to that conclusion. Dr. Carl Werner had wrote a book called "The Grant Experiment (Vol. 2): Living Fossils" which he had argued for mammals which shared these similarities to other modern mammals. The news reports did report on these similarities as well. There are YECs that think that this is a beaver, while evolutionists have claimed that its not a beaver. I'm uncertain, but the similarities are strikingly similar to a beaver. Having beaver-like characteristics can only mean two things: 1) That it is a beaver, or 2) that it is just similar to a beaver but not a beaver. Both are clear possibilities. However, once again, no one is allowed to see nor examine the fossil so we can't know for sure.
I do agree that finding a beaver in the same strata as dinosaur layers would be an incredible discovery, if true. Especially for the evolutionists since they view these layers as different ages and the fossils in light of their alleged "evolutionary" development. Evolutionists believes that rodents evolved millions of years following the ages that the dinosaurs lived in. This will come up later as well.
Christian: Prior to this, researchers have only found beavers in the uppermost portion of the fossil record.
Brian: True, and so evolutionists conclude from this that beavers evolved after the dinosaurs did, but this is an assumption based upon their evolutionary beliefs and uniformitarianism.
Christian: This section of the fossil record is called the Cenozoic. It is characterized by all of our modern types of mammals.
Brian: This is the label that evolutionists have placed upon it, but none of these layers are representative of time and ages. These rock layers were formed during the Flood.
Christian: Most young-earth paleontologists think these modern mammal fossils formed after the Flood, while those of dinosaurs and other animals buried with them formed during the Flood.
Brian: I'm not really sure of this, but I do know that YECs have argued for some fossils being created as so during the Ice Age. Most of the fossils, though would've resulted from the global Flood. Fossils are only made in specialized conditions, and are rarely made today. The next biggest event of this magnitude that would've followed the Flood was the Ice Age, and the later didn't cover the world only 30% of it with most of it being in the northern hemisphere.
Christian: Some creationists have jumped onto the discovery of this “Jurassic beaver” because they think it disproves the theory of evolution. After all, if beavers are present in the dinosaur-bearing rock layers, then they clearly have not changed since then.
Brian: In a way. It disproves an evolutionary prediction about the order of the fossils. As said earlier, YECs can account for the order of the fossils, as can evolutionists. It's a prediction that both groups make, so the order of the fossils cannot be used against the other group, although evolutionists do, but when they do that it's called confirmation bias since they failed to take into account that the alternative position makes the same claim or prediction. However, if found in the same strata as dinosaurs would invalidate that prediction but work just as well with the YEC position who sees these animals coexisting anyways.
Christian: There is a significant issue with the “Jurassic beaver” hypothesis. All beavers, including extinct species, belong to the family Castoridae.
Brian: This is true in terms of how they classify it, but the application is false. Since the modern classification system is man-made and less than 300 years old, we cannot treat the classification system as if it is universal, or as if it was discovered rather than invented. How we choose to group things is a matter of preference. This doesn't mean it is necessarily arbitrary. We can have reasons why we group things the way we do, but we can group things a different way if we choose to.
For example, we could choose to group something based upon geological locations instead of biological similarities and physiological characteristics. In that case, we could classify all Australian animals as "Out-backs" and all African animals as "Africanus" in which case lions and cats would no longer be the same "family" and the four-eyed opossum of South Africa and the Kangaroo of Australia would no longer be under the classification "marsupials" but we chose to group them a different way.
In other words, just because someone groups them this way does not mean that is the way they should be grouped. This is a fallacy in logic called the naturalistic fallacy, also known as the is/ought fallacy. Evolutionists primarily group a group of animals that have been found in the fossil record as "docodontids" which are animals that are distinguished by their strange molars. These animals no longer exist, so evolutionists classify them as "mammaliaforms" (discussed above) which they think evolved into mammals. Since these fossils are primarily found in the Jurassic layers they assumed that they went extinct millions of years before the rise of rodents. Unfortunately, this is circular reasoning.
Christian: Creation biologists consider this a single created kind that survived the Flood on Noah’s Ark. Later, it diverged into multiple species.
Brian: Most YECs approximate kinds to the family level, but it's not the same as an exact equivalence since the modern classification system did not exist in Biblical times. In fact to equate the modern classification system perfectly to a created kind one must commit a type of word study fallacy called the semantic anacronyms fallacy. This is where you take a word that can mean something different in its modern term and apply it to a word's meaning in the past, in case that would be kind.
Now do all beavers have a specific kind? Yes, and maybe it is true to the family. They are considered the only surviving members of that particular family and maybe they are also a monotypical animal (an animal that has only one species in a given kind). Yes. Maybe all creationists biologist classify it as such. However, what's going to happen is that Christian is going to assume the way they classify Castorocauda is correct, but as we should see, it is not.
Christian: Advocates of the “Jurassic beaver” hypothesis suggest that Castorocauda was a species within the beaver created kind that lived before the Flood. However, this assumption faces a major problem.
Brian: It's possible that Castorocauda could be related to a beaver, we just don't know. No one is allowed to view the fossil, so without a proper examination of the fossil and a side-side comparison with an actual beaver we can't know for sure. However, Dr. Werner, nor I, have ever argued that it must be the same created kind as a beaver. Maybe it is, but we don't know for sure. However, the way in which one chooses to classify it has no bearing on rather it is the same created kind or not. Christians is about to assume this in his article, and we'll see what "problems" he thinks this view has.
Christian: Beavers are classified into the order Rodentia. There are some 2,000 species of rodents alive today, which in turn are divided into around 30 families. This means that over 40% of all known mammal species are rodents! Rodents come in as many shapes and sizes as you can imagine. The pygmy mouse barely tips the scale at 5 grams. Meanwhile, the capybara is the largest living rodent, weighing about 77 to 146 pounds (that is the size of a Labrador Retriever!). And in between these two extremes exist squirrels, chipmunks, rats, prairie dogs, porcupines and countless others.
Brian: Most of this I find to be very useful information. Like I said, the classification system isn't arbitrary, but it is based upon preference on how we choose to group these things. Christian is actually trying to make a point with all this which we haven't gotten to yet, but I think we're fixing to. Interesting, I find the fact that rodents come in all sizes interesting since size will play a factor in this, or at least it did when Dr. Joel Duff made his response videos.
Christian: Regardless of all the various forms rodents can take, one feature they all share in common is that their jaws are made to gnaw on things. Every rodent on the planet has four chisel-shaped teeth, called incisors, at the front of the mouth. Two are on the top jaw, and two on the bottom jaw. These teeth never stop growing as long as the animal lives. They make it possible for rodents to gnaw through wood and other hard materials. Unlike us, rodents have no canine teeth. But behind the incisors, all rodents have a gap (where the cheeks are), called the diastema. This is followed by flat premolars and molars they use to grind their food.
Brian: This is true of all modern-day rodents, and probably the most powerful line of evidence the alternative view has against this being a beaver. However, we don't know if this was always true of all rodents, or what we call "rodents", for all time. Did their teeth and jaws always looked that way? Unless you can take a time machine, we don't know. All we have is the present animals and fossils to examine. Also, as we shall see below, teeth can be misleading and highly interpretive. Additionally, I would add that something can differ widely and still be considered the same family, or even the same species. Dog breeds differ extensively, especially in the jaw and skull areas as well as their sizes, but yet they are all considered the same species and same family. Although differences can happen, how many differences, or how much does it have to differ, before it is no longer consider the same "species" or "family"?
Christian: Beavers possess all of these features, which is why scientists classify them as rodents.
Brian: True, but that's according to our modern classification system which are based on modern characteristics in the present. It would be harder to classify fossils of allegedly extinct animals this way since we can't observe these animals in their natural habitats nor can we do genetic studies on them to find out how close they are to a particular group of animals. So, we do not know what rodents and beavers looked like in the past. Could Castorocauda be related to a beaver? Even if it was a docodontid which they had classify it as, how do we know that such a creature is not related to a rodent? It's teeth are usually not the deciding factor in a given created kind, but it is for the classification for docodontid. This will give us something to think about on this as we move forward.
Christian: Is Castorocauda also a rodent? More specifically, is it a beaver or beaver-like animal?
Brian: The last two should be recognized as two different questions, but the way Christian said it seems to assume that "beaver" and "beaver-like" are the same thing when they are not. The later, just means similarity to a beaver. It is always possible that something can have similarities to a beaver without being a beaver or even related to a beaver. Than again, similarities could mean that they are related, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are related. It can also have similarities because it is a beaver. My point is that similarities leaves the question open for discussion and it takes extra steps to say that it is a beaver, it's just related to a beaver, or that it's not a beaver.
What about the first question that Christian asked? Is Castorocauda a rodent? This assumes the modern classification system. However, it has another underlining assumption. It assumes rodents of the past would also match the physiological characteristics of what makes something a "rodent" in our present-day world, but we don't know if rodents always possess these features, we just assume it. A better question today would be is Castorocauda a "beaver" in the past? This question is much harder to answer since it'll require you to know what beavers looked like then rather than what they looked like now. Also, could Castorocauda just be a distant cousin of the beaver? Yes, it could be. Again, there is a lack of certainty here.
Christian: To answer this question, we must peer into the mouth of a Castorocauda. While the little creature is sadly no longer living among us, its fossil skull is very well-preserved. So are its chompers. While Castorocauda did have incisors, they are not enlarged or chisel-shaped and therefore are unsuitable for gnawing on hard materials like wood. Canines are present in the mouth (which rodents do not have), and the molars are pointed, backwards-curving, interlocking teeth. This type of tooth is common in animals that have to catch and hold onto slippery prey, like modern seals and extinct cetaceans such as Pakicetus. God designed these teeth to shear and grind their food. This tooth arrangement suggests Castorocauda was also after fast, slippery prey, most likely fish and water-dwelling invertebrates.
Brian: Teeth are highly interpretive and extremely misleading. The way Christian words that it almost sounds as if he thinks the teeth are the deciding factor. Christian here is getting most of his information, as well as the drawings with it, from the only peer-reviewed paper that I'm aware of on the topic of Castorocauda, which you can also find here. I'm not sure why he doesn't source anything here. This could have legal ramifications if he's not careful. I do have a discussion of this paper, along with an up-close image of the fossils mouth as well located in one of my response videos to Dr. Joel Duff.
The reference to incisors are interesting since Dr. Joel Duff denied the fossil of having incisors or even a elongated snout extending beyond the teeth. His video on that can be found here. The only live photo (non-drawing, non-computer imaged) we have of it, which is the only we have floating around the Internet, which was also included in the aforementioned paper, shows a sideward view of the thing. Assumedly, if incisors were present we should see them on a sideward view, but we can't. However, there's a likely possibility that they could've fell out prior to fossilization, and if this was the case, then we should still see a frontward indication of where incisors use to be, but we won't know that from the side. We'd need a frontward view which the original examiners could've accomplished. If so, then it would be obvious that incisors use to be there. This could also be indicated by the fact that Christian had said "While Castorocauda did have incisors..." (bold and italics added for emphasis). This suggested that Christian is acknowledging that it fits certain indentures that were examined in the front. This would also be supported by, despite Dr. Duff's claims to the contrary, the fact that the fossilized creature's mouth was protruding out from its teeth a bit.
However, this raises an interesting observation. Afterwards, Christian adds, "they are not enlarged or chisel-shaped and therefore are unsuitable for gnawing on hard materials like wood" which would suggest that we know what these incisors looked like, but we don't, so how does Christian know their architecture? He wouldn't know! I think he's getting this "information" from the interpretations, and more like speculations in this case, from other evolutionists.
Christians also claim that the creature had canine teeth. All of the fossil's teeth that are exposed on the right side of its mouth in the only known photo of this thing has sharp teeth, so I'm not sure how to determine that from any other teeth in its mouth. For the time being, I would have to yield to experts on this, but for reference purposes, canines are the really sharp teeth on both of one's four front teeth of a creature's, or person's, mouth. We do not have the other side to personally examine, but perhaps the original examiners did (assuming it was allowed to be examined once found), or even if not, perhaps they assumed one side mirrors the other (if there is a canine tooth on one side then perhaps it's on both sides--which is a reasonable assumption). Nevertheless, since all of its teeth are sharp like a seal's teeth, I would still have to wonder how they would know the difference.
Nevertheless, let's say it did have canines. Is that an indication of what it ate? No. Since Koala Bears also have canine teeth but they are herbivores. It is true, however, that modern-day beavers don't have canine teeth. Their teeth are flat and dull, with orange tent on them from the iron in their teeth. We will discuss the teeth more thoroughly here in a few minutes.
What about this reference to the idea that it's molars are pointed backwards? This is false. Molars are the flat teeth in the back of one's mouth. Docodontid, in which evolutionists has classified Castorocauda as, has molars that are weird looking and flipped backwards. In fact, that's how they are distinguished in our modern classification system. However, when you look at the fossil's molars in the photo it's molars are flat and straight up like ours is. Christian is getting this interpretation from drawings that was included in the paper, linked above.
Drawings are highly interpretive, often relying heavily on assumptions, speculations, and imagination, and can be easily tweaked. However, it's highly doubtful that the writers saw and examined the actual fossil. They include one live photo of the thing, which was the same photograph floating around the Internet, and the rest was drawings. In fact, all of the "images" of the teeth and the jaw were drawings. Again, I wonder if Christian knows that, or did he assumed that the writers had access to the fossil and just drew drawings of the teeth and jaw? Either way, he does assume their accuracy here without asking the question does the teeth really looked like way. Personally, I think the writers assumed it was a docodontid and drew its teeth accordingly.
It's teeth matches that of a seal's, true enough, but does that mean the thing ate fish? The only way to know what something eat that had been fossilized is if it's food in its belly had been preserved or fossilized with it. The architecture of its teeth being examined this way are highly interpretive. You have to draw inferences from its teeth, and such inferences are not absolute. Koala Bears have sharp teeth, but don't eat meat. They are herbivores that mainly eat Eucalyptus leaves and use their sharp claws on their fingers to open nuts. All bears are omnivores, which means they can eat both plants and meat, but they have very sharp teeth. The researchers assumed since the structure of the teeth was like a seal's, it ate what seals eat, but this is an additional assumption that we do not know for a fact. However, the teeth are sharp and straight up in the photo (looking identical to a seal's teeth), so any complexity that Christian is "seeing" is from the drawings not the actual photo.
Christian: Castorocada does not possess the telltale features of beavers and other rodents.
Brian: This is incorrect and works contrary to all observations and even references from other evolutionists to the contrary, including the peer-reviewed paper he's getting his information about Castorocauda's teeth. Everyone agrees that the fossil holds some similarities that is distinguishable to a beaver such as the tail. The fossil gives us evidence of its flattened tail that are distinct to beavers, fur that covers its body, and webbed hind feet (which is very unusual for a mammal to possess (even duckbill platypuses and river otters have all four feet webbed--the Kangaroo's "hindfeet" are webbed, but they only have two feet, plus hands and arms and fingers that are not webbed, but webbed feet in mammals are rare enough, but a four-footed animal with its hindfeet that are only webbed in mammals is even rarer).
The situation gets worse for Christian. Although webbed feet and a distinct beaver-like tail might not be unique features in and of themselves to beavers (the later is also found similar in river otters), given the rarity of these things apart, together becomes less likely. If this thing truly isn't a beaver, it surely possess beaver-like characteristics. Then why does Christian claim the above statement? It's because he's getting that from its teeth. Since its teeth are not distinctly beaver-like the rest of him must not be either, but this is the fallacy of composition, another fallacy in logic. As already stated several times in this article, the teeth can be misleading. Since we don't know what beavers looked like back then we have no way of falsifying its claim about the teeth. The only thing we had to consider is how beaver teeth are in the present.
Consider this: if we considered birds by their teeth then we'd never classify a "prehistoric" bird like Archaeopteryx a bird because all fossilized birds from before the Flood had teeth. In fact, in a recent discovery they had actually a farmer found a chicken where a mutation that had "turned on" the gene required for the teeth forcing a chicken to regrow its alligator-like teeth! However, all modern-day birds do not have teeth, but they use to have teeth. What if someone assumed that all birds in the fossil record that had teeth weren't birds? After all, birds today don't have teeth, but they use to have teeth.
What about elephants. All present-day elephants don't have fur. This is unusual for mammals since all other mammals, except hippos, have fur. In fact, that's one one of the distinguishing qualities of a mammal in our modern-day classification system. However, we know that some elephants, at least along the same lines as elephants, or ones related to them, had fur. Mammoths for example, or more specifically wooly mammoths, had fur. However, everyone, including both creationists and evolutionists, agree that elephants are related to the mammoths and they are, of course, also both considered mammals. What if one concludes that all elephants must not be related to the mammoths because of their size or the fact that they don't have fur? What if we had no wooly mammoths to compare? Can one conclude that elephants never had fur?
Trying to make inferences from fossils to present-day animal features are hard indeed, and in some cases, next to impossible. There's no way we can falsify the differences unless we have examples in the fossil evidence. We can only work off the similarities to know for sure, but even that can be misleading when everyone is working off the interpretations, assumptions, speculations, and claims of others who also had not seen nor examined the actual fossil.
Christian: This means that not only was it not a beaver or beaver-like animal, it was not even a rodent.
Brian: Wow! This is a very bold statement indeed. I can honestly see why Dr. Duff would promote this article now, but this claim works contrary to all of the evidence of similarities that we have, and a wide agreement of this from the other side of persons who don't even believe it was a beaver who also admit that it had beaver-like characteristics. That's a bold statement to make off nothing more than differences in its teeth from a beaver, some of which is either based upon interpretive drawings or speculations (in the case with the incisors).
The last statement either assumes this from the way in which they are classifying it or does so from its mouth. However, as for the later, Christian admits that it had incisors but then speculate on what these look like. His strongest evidence was the non-beaver-like teeth and the possibility of canines (I say the "possibility of canines" because I'm still not sure how you could tell since all of it's teeth are sharp that's visible from the photo--so here I'm not accusing Christian of speculation by saying that), but the later assumes that beaves throughout all time did not have canines, but we can only argue for all present-day beavers not beavers in the far past.
Christian: While God made rodent jaws and teeth for gnawing on wood and other materials...
Brian: This is true, but Christian is assuming his speculation about the incisors are correct, which he does not know. He is also assuming that sharp teeth cannot be used for the same. This is an interpretation he is making about the teeth. We do not know this.
Christian: ...He made Castorocauda's jaws and teeth for shearing and grinding slippery food.
Brian: This is an interpretation based upon the structure of its teeth which we've already proven are misleading and non-universal when it comes to inferences. Without being there nor having its food preserved in its belly during fossilization, the later being rarity anyhow, we cannot know for sure what it ate.
Christian: The go-to body part advocates of the “Jurassic beaver” hypothesis point to is Castorocauda’s flat tail.
Brian: Interesting, he denied any "beaver-like" characteristics, but then he begins discussing its beaver-like tail, a distinguishable feature for a beaver, probably one of the most distinguishable features on a beaver. So in this section of his article he'll jump to discussing one of the most obvious feature of this creature, it's flat beaver-like tail.
Christian: Even the discoverers of this animal acknowledge the beaver-like appearance of its tail.
Brian: What's so interesting about Christian writing this statement is that only moments before he denied the creature having beaver-like characteristics, but then admits that even the discoverers of the find admits this, as does everyone else. Christian has now placed himself in a similar position to Dr. Duff and many of his supporters, denying the thing that everyone agrees the most on with this fossil.
Christian: Fossil skin impressions even show that it was covered in a similar scaly texture.
Brian: This true. The texture as well as the shape matches that of a beaver's tail.
Christian: Surely this is proof that Castorocauda is a beaver.
Brian: This is false, and I know Christian isn't making that leap, but he seems to be saying that some are, and he might be right. Everyone else agrees that Castorocauda has similarities to a beaver (with the exception of some--there are always a few outliers), but does that mean it's a beaver necessarily? No, it doesn't. In the same way a duckbill platypus isn't a duck because it has similarities to a duck, or a dolphin is a fish because it has similarities to a fish. Animals can have similarities to other animals without being other animals.
With that said, however, when very distinct similarities, especially rare ones, are combined with other distinct characteristics (or other rare ones), one cannot ignored the very real possibility of it. Of course, I'm not saying that it's a beaver, nor am I saying that it's not a beaver. Without closer examination of the fossil itself, and with just taking the interpretive word and drawings of others, one cannot be sure. To say Castorocauda is a beaver, or even to say its not a beaver as Christian is saying, takes an extra step in either direction. One is taking an extra step from its similarities while another is taking an extra step in the opposite direction from its differences. Either one of these would not be logical necessities. However, it does open the door to both possibilities.
This does not mean that both are true, only one of these are true since these two are incompatible with each other, a law in logic called the law of excluded middle. However, the possibility of either of these claims are now on the table. Which one is it? I maintain there's no way to know for sure until the original owners of the fossil releases it for personal examination and to be photographed by others.
Christian: However, a closer look at the bone structure of Castorocauda’s tail reveals this not to be the case. This image on the right compares the tail bones of Castorocauda (C) with those of a domestic cat (A), an extinct mammal called Jeholodens (B), and a modern-day American beaver (D). While Castorocauda’s tail certainly does have some similarities to those of the American beaver, the beaver’s tail bones are much, much wider. And when examining the individual tail bones themselves, the researchers noticed they are very similar to those of a modern river otter.
Brian: With this, Christian includes drawings of the tail and the vertebrae in comparison to a cat, a beaver, and a river otter. We'll put aside my usual jab of him basing this on drawings and just look at what he's arguing. Essentially, if you look at the drawings, the vertebrae doesn't match a river otter's nor a beaver's vertebrate, so Christian concludes from this that it is unlike a Beaver's because it is not as wide. If you look at the actual fossil's tail end in the photo, linked above, you'd begged to differ. However, you can't make this conclusion simply from the width of the tail's vertebrae. Something that's related to something, even closely related, can have different backbone structures. Also, if you compare the drawing of the river otter's vertebrae, it is smaller! If either the paper's author or Christian was being consistent he's have to conclude that the bone structure does not match a river otter's either.
Also, I would differ with Christian on how much wider it is. At least from the drawings, the differences are not by much. The shape is more consistent with a beaver's vertebrae anyhow if these drawings can be trusted. The reference to "many" is referring back to the paper that claims on the drawings between 1cm vs. 5cm, but the drawings on the paper is comparing one part of the vertebrae against one part of a vertebrae on another. At the "thicker" end, they look similar. Once again, the way he said "researchers noticed" seems to suggests that he thought they had personally examined the fossil but this is unlikely. The original owners of the fossil are not allowing it to be subject for viewing, photographing it, nor examination. The only known photograph of it is circling the Internet because its discoverer released on his Twitter account, and now it's the same picture floating around the Internet.
Christian: It appears that even the most “beaver-like” body part of Castorocauda is not quite as beaver-like as thought upon first glance.
Brian: This is Christian's conclusion, but as we saw it's faulty. Although it has similarities to an otter's tail, it clearly has more in common with that of a beaver. Strange, though, despite him trying to argue for the lack of similarities, it is clear that he admits to "some" similarities to a beaver in the same passage he's suppose to "prove" otherwise. I think it's similarities to a beaver is hard for one to get around, even if you're trying to do just that.
Christian: Scientifically, we classify animals into groups based on features they share with each other.
Brian: This is true, but the use of the word "scientifically" may give others the impression that such groupings should be taken universally. Personally, I do not have a problem with one grouping animals into categories like this. The only two problems I had is with cladistics (grouping them on the bases of their presupposed common ancestry--based upon evolutionary beliefs), and treating the modern classification system with universal application, as if it applies universally across time and treating it like it was discovered on how these animals should be grouped rather than invented on we chose to group them. When one does the later, they will often argue from this classification system, which they will often add cladistics to it, or treat humans into one of these niches. I am not accusing Christian of doing most of these things at this time, but he is fixing to do the later one.
The fact that scientists apply a way of grouping animals and people, do not mean that they should be grouped this way. This is a fallacy in logic called the is/ought (or naturalistic) fallacy. The fact that it is true that all animals and people are classified this way (is/are) doesn't mean that should (or ought) to be classified that way. I had also dealt with this earlier too. Although this classification system isn't arbitrary (with the exception of cladistics, which is a whole another way in which things are classified and are added to our modern-day classification system), it is subjective, meaning it derives from how we choose to classify, or group, these things. We could've just as easily grouped them in a different way and it'll work out just as easily.
I would also add, our modern-day classification system is constantly being changed, added onto, subtracted from, regrouped, etc. Even the word "species" has some blurry lines that are constantly in flux where something once one species is now either a different species or the name of the genus. Misclassifications also occurs.
Additionally, no matter we choose to group them, there are always exceptions. Not all mammals give birth to live young or have fur. Not all birds can fly, have wings and feathers. Some mammals lay eggs. These exceptions seemed to work better if all animals were classified under created kinds (baramins) since that's what animals, as well as humans, act like and how they seem to behave. Often fossils are classified in these classifications, and extinct animals are added to both present-existing groups, as well as groups long extinct. I think Christian is fixing to get into this.
Christian: Importantly, these classifications must rely on a very comprehensive set or list of characteristics, not just one or or two things they share in common.
Brian: This is the way in which opted to group them, according to a specific set of common characteristics. It's, ironically, the complexity of these characteristics that create these "exceptions to the rule" mentioned above. However, we could've decided to group them differently based upon a different set of complex characteristics and it would've worked out that way too, but animals once apart of the same group may now be grouped differently. Christian is implying the is/ought fallacy here. I understand where he's coming from, he hopes to convince you that this must be the case since this list of characteristics are complex, and all sharing that group must have them, but we have chosen to group them that way. We could've easily have opted for a different way to group them and that would've worked too. The complexity of the characteristics are irrelevant here.
Christian: For example, mammals are distinguished from other animals by a set of features.
Brian: This is true, but we have chosen to group them this way, not because they should be grouped that way. I don't think Christian is taking that fact into account here.
Christian: These typically include hair or fur...
Brian: Mammals are classified by them being covered in fur, not hair specifically. Humans have lots of different types of hair on their bodies, but none are fur, so by definition of a "mammal" we wouldn't qualify, especially since this covers a mammals entire body. Even our hair doesn't cover your entire body, unless your Cousin It from the Adam's Family, but that's another issue. Fur is a type of hair, but very different in texture and posture. It's much coarser than anything we have on our bodies.
I don't classify humans as "mammals" although some YECs don't have a problem with it. The later makes it look like we're just animals, and I don't agree with that. We were made distinct from the animals and we were created in the Image of God. I do not believe we should be grouped in the same grouping as dogs and cats and as cows and horses. We should be our own group entirely. This is my main issue with grouping people as such. The "lacking fur thing" is intended as a reductio ad absurdum argument. Even if we assume that all mammals should be classified as such we wouldn't be classified as such since we don't meet the most essential criterion of classifying one apart of this group, namely fur.
Despite the importance of this characteristic to the classification of mammals, as it is even being stressed by Christian, there are some exceptions. Modern-day elephants and hippos do not have fur but are still classified as mammals, although some members of their kind in the past possessed fur. Wooly mammoths for example had fur. Despite this common characteristic, there are still exceptions to the rule. Christian needs to be more careful with how he is arguing this. This is neither universally nor consistently applied, although it's usually the case.
Christian: ...a lower jaw composed of a single bone (called the dentary) that is not connected to the bones of the middle ear...
Brian: The lower jaw being connected as a single bone is common within the group labeled as "mammals" but we chose to group them this way. However, it isn't universally applied. Duckbill platypuses don't have bones or jaws at all, but a bill, but yet they are classified as mammals. Spiny anteaters are mammals but they have a beak like a bird's beak.
Christian: ...and the ability to produce milk to feed their young.
Brian: This is true. I'm not aware of any exceptions here. This requires what scientists has labeled "mammalian glands" which the name speaks for itself. However, we still didn't need to group them this way, but we did noticed that a large group of animals possess certain glands that made it possible to feed their young this way, so they are grouped accordingly, but we, again, chose to group them this way. In truth, many types of animals would be covered with this common characteristics from household pets like dogs and cats to cattle like cows and horses. This is why the classification of mammals are so big. Because of the way they are classified or grouped, this would include a broad range of different animals, but it would also include humans as well since we possess these glands to lactate our young. Such broad characteristics, and we'll find all sorts of creatures that comply with them.
Christian: Beavers, kangaroos, and the platypus are all examples of mammals because they have these and other features in common.
Brian: Platypuses don't have the lower jaw bone, but a bill, but Christian included them in this list. Not sure why he did. It is true, however, under this grouping and categorization, Beavers and Kangaroos would apply.
Christian: In contrast, hummingbirds, bullfrogs, and boa constrictors are not mammals because they lack these features.
Brian: This is true, but Christian is not taking into account that we chose how these things ought to be grouped. This does not mean that this is how they should be grouped. He seems to be utilizing the is/ought fallacy in logic more stronger as he gets closer to his primary and underlining point in bringing up our classifying of these animals.
Christian: We cannot be sure whether Castorocauda fed its young with milk...
Brian: This is true. Mammalian glands cannot be fossilized so there's no way of knowing that unless the animal was still around today and we can observe it in the present.
Christian: ...but its fossils show that it was indeed covered in fur.
Brian: This is also true. The fossil evidence for this is strong, and, in my opinion, undeniable.
Christian: While this might seem to place it into the mammal category, it is missing several other telltale mammal features.
Brian: This is incorrect in a way. It is true that we can't prove that it has certain features, such as the neocortex around the brain nor the mammalian glands, both of which does not fossilized, but there's no evidence that it didn't have such features either. Christian is about to rely on the drawings again instead of a firsthand look at the actual fossil as we shall see. Given the fact that there are "exceptions to the rule" on, at least, some of these characteristics, are we really in a position where we can say definitively that it isn't a mammal if we can prove that one or two of theses characteristics are lacking? If the modern-day classification system is a matter of preference anyways, and we don't hold consistently to every characteristic, then can we argue that it's not the case if one or two of these characteristics are lacking?
However, one could pushback on this, and say yes, but the point is if a beaver has all these characteristics just the same, and if Castorocauda really is a beaver, then it would possess these characteristics too. I think this is a reasonable objection, but with one caveat: we don't know how beavers looked back then (discussed earlier). However, since this is a reasonable objection, let's explore it. Christian is about to go into the reasons why he thinks this shouldn't be classified as a mammal.
Christian: As described above, true mammals have a lower jaw made up of a single bone that is disconnected with their middle ear bones.
Brian: This statement commits the no true Scotsman fallacy. It is strongly implied by the word "true" here. Christian is assuming that this characteristic is required to be a mammal, but it is just a common characteristic that happens to be true of the way in which we opted to group them. Additionally, there are exceptions to this in the case of the lower jaw thing with the duckbill platypus. However, Christian is about to deny these characteristics with Castorocada.
Christian: Castorocauda’s middle ear bones attach to its lower jaw. (See the image in the section “Is Castorocauda a Rodent?”) This suggests that this animal is in fact technically not a true mammal.
Brian: Here, Christian is relying on drawings that he copied/pasted from the peer-reviewed paper mentioned by this article, linked above, and mentioned earlier. In fact, Christian is alluding to these drawings in the parenthetical reference by him concerning that particular section. The actual image of Castorocada actually, and quite literally, paints a different picture. The jaw bone looks like one solid bone and you can't tell if it has any ears, let alone inner ear bones. It is encased in a slab of rock and the original researchers were not allowed to examine the actual fossil which is why they use drawings. This is the image of Castorocada again which had also been copied at the beginning of this article, and is the only known photograph of the fossil in question:
The last statement that Christian had made here is also the no true Scotsman fallacy. It assumes the lack of one or two of such characteristics disqualifies it as a mammal, but this is not the case. We do not always follow these common characteristic traits consistently enough to claim definitely it must not be the case if one or two of them are missing.
Christian: There is another group of furry animals that also shares the unique features of Castorocauda, called Docodonta.
Brian: Docodontids were an extinct group, usually classified as mammaliaforms which are considered by evolutionists to be a group of animals with similar characteristics to mammals, but certain characteristics which cannot be proven that they possess that other mammals possess, are classified as such. Evolutionists assume that all mammaliaforms evolved into mammals. Docodontids are among that group. They are distinguished from the other groups by their strange molars flipped backwards toward the mouth.
There are many problems with this. I had discussed mammaliaforms earlier. There are certain characteristics we cannot prove because they cannot fossilized and we don't hold consistently to this since we have no problem with labeling other fossils, such as the sabretooth tiger as a mammal, even though brains and glands don't fossilize.
Another problem with this is that "mammaliaforms" assumes both cladistics and evolution. I'm not accusing Christian of believing in evolution, but I do think he's bought into the way they group these categories, even when they are being grouped based upon cladistics and evolutionary beliefs.
Now, Christian is getting into how they have opted to group Castorocauda in our classification system here. The assumption is that since Castorocauda is classified as docodonta, and beavers are not, not only is Castorocauda not a mammal like a beaver, it cannot even be a beaver. However, is that the case? Should we classify Castorocauda as a docodonta? Let's find out.
Christian: We commonly find these creatures fossilized in dinosaur-bearing fossil sites.
Brian: Correct. Both Castorocauda and docodontids are found in dinosaur dig sites along with dinosaurs, particularly in the Jurassic layer. However, Christian needs to be careful at this point. It almost sounds like he is implying the idea that if they are found in the same layer then they belong to the same grouping, but this would be an incorrect assumption. Lots of fossils are found in that layer which may or may not hold any connection to each other. If these layers are caused by the global Flood and are not different "ages" as me and Christian would both agree with, then the fact they are found in the same rock layer, in dinosaur strata, or around dinosaur fossils is inconsequential.
Christian: The skull structure and teeth of Castorocauda much more closely resembles that of other docodonts, such as Borealestes and Docodon itself, than any of them do to beavers or beaver-like animals.
Brian: This is incorrect. As far as "similar" skull structures I assume he means size and shape, but all mammals come in various sizes and shapes, including their skulls. Dog breeds themselves differ significantly on their various skull sizes and shapes, but they are considered the same species, but yet small dogs and tom cats can have similar skull shapes and sizes but yet not even be the same family. Thus, this point, although true, is irrelevant.
What about similarity in teeth? Although docodontids have similar sharp teeth to Castorocauda, the molars are not the same shape nor design. Christian is, once again, getting this idea from the drawings. The molars are the most distinguishing characteristic of a docodontid. However, Castorocauda's molars are flat, squared, and dull, and are not flipped backwards like a docodontid's.
This would mean, even if we assumed their cladistic classifications and evolutionary assumptions here, that we cannot classify Castorocauda as apart of the order of docodonta. The closest resemblance it would have is its sharp teeth, but man animals has those kinds of teeth without being apart of the order of docodonta such as seals, which Castorocauda matches perfectly.
I will say this though, as much as Castorocauda doesn't match that of a docodontid, it's teeth are even further removed from a modern-day beaver's. Beavers have square, flat teeth and have orange tent to them due to the iron in their teeth. None of their teeth matches the teeth of Castorocauda. I think Castorocauda did have incisors. What they look like, I do not know. Its elongated snout protruding some distance from its teeth would suggest incisors of some kind. The one argument that I would make on this, however, is that we don't know what a beavers' teeth actually looked like then. So there's no way to know for sure here.
Christian: In fact, scientists place docodonts into a group of animals called mammaliaformes [sic].
Brian: He misspelled "mammaliaforms" but yes that's true, but this is a cladistic term and is based upon evolutionary presuppositions on what they call a "clade" and usually it is determined by the lack of provable mammal features, but this isn't taken consistently with fossils that everyone, including they, would agree is a mammal. We had discussed what they called "mammaliaforms" earlier in the article.
Christian: This is the group that contains “true mammals,” as well as other animals that are similar to them, but are missing some of the key features.
Brian: What Christian says here is a bit odd. It almost sounded like he called "mammaliaforms" were the "true mammals" but that's not how evolutionary scientists classify them. However, that's not what he means here. I think the confusion is how he chose to word it. I think what he's saying is that mammaliaforms are missing key features of what makes a mammal a mammal and thus are classified as such because of it. However, as already stated a lot of this is based upon cladistic terminology and evolutionary presuppositions about the past.
I'm not accusing Christian of having those beliefs himself, but he is borrowing from the claims of evolutionary scientists whom do have those beliefs and assumptions. Nevertheless, I do think Christian is unaware of this. I think he just assumes they have legitimate reasons, while completely unaware that those drawings that he's relying so much on are solely based upon evolutionary presuppositions and interpretations and those writers did not have access to the fossil itself that they were referring to.
Christian: Castorocauda is not a beaver.
Brian: That's Christian's conclusion, but that's what he needs to demonstrate, and in his article I do not think that he's done that. He relied heavily on a paper that he failed to reference whose writers did not personally examined the fossil, and drawings, more specifically, from that paper that was based upon some heavy interpretation. It also assumes that how beavers looked today is how they looked then, but we don't know that. I will say more on this when I reach my conclusion, but for right now, I would say give the arguments on both sides I do not think we can say for sure, and certainly not well enough to be this dogmatic about it.
Christian: It is not a beaver-like animal...
Brian: This is an even bolder statement than the other. What does Christian think is a "beaver-like animal" exactly? Beaver-like just means that it has similarities to a beaver, not that it was a beaver or related to one. When he says this you'd think at first gloss that he was denying any similarities at all, but he had already admitted to "some similarities" to a beaver earlier in the paper. I think this second dogmatic claim was one that Christian wanted to make, but despite all efforts to that end, he ends up letting it slipped that there were similarities between Castorocauda and a beaver.
Christian: ...or a rodent. It is a completely different type of animal.
Brian: This one is assumed by Christian for two reasons: 1) the alleged architecture of its incisors, and 2) the structure of the rest of its teeth. The first one was speculation and the second one was based upon drawings from a paper he had failed to referenced that was based upon their interpretations and how they classify docodontids.
There was something else I had failed to cover. Even if it was apart of that same group, how does Christian, as well as evolutionary scientists, know that docodontids were not related to a beaver? They don't. Their presuppositions favor the idea that what they call "mammaliaforms" had died out prior to the rise of mammals. Again, not accusing Christian of holding to these presuppositions, but he is borrowing from evolutionary scientists who do hold to them.
Given how the creature once held an incisor and has a snout that is protruded out and away from where its teeth sit in its mouth, this feature is common for what we classify as "rodents" so I don't think you can easily dismiss this classification that easily. Christian is being as dogmatic as Dr. Joel Duff is on this, but it is questionable dogmatism.
Christian: The “Jurassic beaver” hypothesis ironically does little to support a creationist view of earth’s history.
Brian: It's not meant to. In fact, it doesn't "support" it nor "deny" it. YEC's position are not impacted from it at all. It's kind of like the chimp-similarity-to-human debate. In reality, YECs can account for both genetic similarities and genetic differences within our paradigm, but the evolutionists needs this number to be high in agreement to it, so many YECs would favor the lower numbers, not because either position is incompatible with our position, but because it's a problem for evolutionary side of things, and YECs love causing evolutionists headaches. It's the same thing. Our position wouldn't be impacted or not rather this turns out to be a beaver or not found in dinosaur strata, but it does cause a lot of evolutionists a lot of headaches. Evolutionists cannot have beavers in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. My position isn't impacted by it so it takes the burden off of my shoulders and leaves the door open to what I decide. I just don't think the evidence is conclusive enough to say definitely one way or the other, so I don't.
Christian: Even if Castorocauda were truly a beaver-like animal, it would be an anomaly in an otherwise consistent trend.
Brian: This is false. Over 400 modern-like mammals have been found in the rock strata with dinosaurs. That doesn't sound like an "anomaly" in an "otherwise consistent trend" to me.
Christian: We find virtually the only known fossils belonging to modern groups of mammals within the Cenozoic rock layers. These are the layers above those containing dinosaurs.
Brian: This is false. Modern-like mammals are found in every rock dinosaur strata. I wondering if he is equating words like "beaver-like" with "beaver" which was the same mistake that Dr. Joel Duff had made. These don't necessarily mean the same thing, as mentioned earlier in this article.
Christian: We also find Castorocauda and other docodonts only alongside dinosaurs. If Castorocauda were truly a beaver-like animal, why are nearly all other modern mammals absent from dinosaur fossil sites around the world?
Brian: This is has a strawman argument implied within it. Since we believe in a global Flood we would expect animals, including mammals, to be scattered. Our expectation is not to find every type of mammal in the dinosaur rock layers. Flood models also cover this. Me and Dr. Carl Werner discussed this very thing in our initial interview on Living Fossils.
Christian: Rodents and docodonts share superficial similarities because they occupied similar ecological roles in distinct, pre-Flood ecosystems.
Brian: This sounds like speculation. What makes Christian think that they don't share similarities because they are the same, or at least related to each other? How does he know what "ecological roles" Castorocauda had played prior to the Flood? Here's a few thoughts: they could also share physiological similarities due to them being versions of each other or related. Am I saying that is the case? No, because that would require me to speculate like Christian is doing, but I am throwing out these mere possibilities to make a point. You don't know what roles they played anymore than you know if they are similar because they are versions of each other, related to each other, or something else entirely.
Christian: After all, animals that fill the same niche often avoid coexisting in the same regions to reduce competition for resources.
Brian: True, but you have no idea if they existed in the same niche or not, and, furthermore, you are assuming that the similarities are not there because they are versions of each other, or even related. Christian's statement here is circular.
Christian: Docodonts lived alongside dinosaurs, while rodents and other modern mammals thrived in separate pre-Flood ecosystems.
Brian: How does he know that docodonts are not related to rodents? Evolutionists assume it because they believe rodents evolved millions of years after dinosaurs, but as a YEC Christian would not agree with that presupposition. So, why does he think this is the case? I think Christian is taking his speculation here to the next level.
First, it is clear, from the actual fossil evidence shown above, Castorocauda was not a docodont. Secondly, there's nothing to say, even if Castorocauda was a docodontid, that docodonts were not related to rodents unless you assumed evolutionary presuppositions about the past. Thirdly, we have way to know what roles a docodontid or a beaver, or Castorocada (if it was separate from a beaver) had back then without speculating. Finally, we also have no way of knowing if docodontids were related to each other let alone Castorocauda.
Christian: It seems these mammal-dominated ecosystems were not preserved in the fossil record at all. This is possibly because they were located in areas of the pre-Flood world that were less conducive to fossilization. Thus, they were ultimately destroyed.
Brian: This is absolute nonsense, especially for a geology student. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but mammals have been found in layers as low as the Triassic, and even along dinosaur fossils. Btw, fossilization isn't based upon one's environment and ecosystem. It is based upon specialized conditions that can permineralized the bone quickly. A global Flood would do that. If fossilization was based upon where an organism lived or called home then we shouldn't find millions of fossils all over the world, but we do.
So, sorry Christian, but this is incorrect. Mammals are found with dinosaur fossils, and as low as the Triassic layer. Fossilization isn't dependent on where you decide to hang your hat. It's based upon the specialized conditions that are necessary to make something into a fossil. What order it appears in could be based upon any number of conditions: mobility, density, etc.
Christian: After the Flood, many creatures, including dinosaurs and docodonts, went extinct.
Brian: This is true, but let's see what he does with it...
Christian: This allowed rodents and modern mammals to then take over all compatible niches and thrive.
Brian: I think they would've done that anyways. Since the Flood caused the Ice Age, the environment changed radically. Although I think dinosaurs would've been prominent following the Flood for people to write dragon legends about them, I don't think they had returned to their former glory. That's why we don't find dinosaurs laying everywhere that died after the Flood. I think the Ice Age would've killed many of them.
Christian: Today, with 40% of modern mammal species belonging to Rodentia. It seems that the mammals’ take over was very, very successful.
Brian: This assumes the modern classification system. It is more accurate to say a group which we now label as "Rodentia" has thrived with 40% of themselves. However, if he recognized this he'd have to avoid his is/ought fallacy and realized that his niche thesis doesn't work unless you assume the way in which we classify animals today in the process.
Christian: It is tempting for many to link the humble Castorocauda with our modern flat-tailed wood-gnawers. But the similarity of one feature (its tail, in this case) is not enough to make the creature as a whole a true beaver or beaver-like animal.
Brian: I partially agree and partially disagree with Christian. The presence of one feature is not enough to make it a beaver, but it is enough to make it beaver-like since the later is just referring to similarities of a beaver. I'm not entirely sure of what he classify as "beaver-like" but it doesn't sound like he means the same thing as me. Second, we have more than one feature. The hindfeet being webbed, combined with it having fur all over its body, and being semiaquatic are all features it has with a beaver and provides a stronger case. Am I saying it's a beaver? No, but it does have distinctly similar characteristics to a beaver, so I think we should at least be open to the possibility of it.
Christian: Virtually everything about Castorocauda, from its physical traits to its behavior, make it clear that it belongs to an entirely different order of extinct creature. One that is sadly no longer with us today.
Brian: False. We can tell very little from the fossil evidence which means our information is very limited, filled with holes of uncertainty and we are forced to fill in the blanks with our interpretations and speculations. This is the usual situation we face with most fossils. Our information is way too limited because we weren't present when the creature was alive. This also means that Christian can know nothing about it's behaver unless he speculates which he did quite often in this article. Even Christian's last statement in this passage assumes that, even if Castorocauda was of the order of docodonta, there's no reason it can't be related to the rodent, unless you assumed and applied how these animals are classified today, which he did, but not just here, but multiple times throughout this article.
In addition to this, Castorocauda has physical characteristic that are in common with a beaver, and may also be in common with a rodent (i.e., such as the elongated snout extending away from the teeth). Christian is making his conclusion here which he seemed to be assuming that he has demonstrated his thesis statement at the beginning of his article, but that's not the case. If anything, he's, inadvertently, pointed the reader to the flaws of the alternative position, and has shown, even one is trying his best to argue against similarities, he wounds up proving that these similarities and common characteristics favor the other position more so than it favors his position on this.
Christian: The discovery of Castorocauda should remind us of the complexity of the fossil record and the diversity of life with which God filled the world that then was.
Brian: We don't need Castorocauda to remind us of that. We can see animals in the present and be reminded of how diverse life is and how creative our God is. However, does that needs Castorocauda to be a beaver or not a beaver? No, it doesn't. One could argue that it is a beaver, and still argue for the diversity of life from our creative God.
Christian: Trying to make this animal into a “Jurassic beaver” is unnecessary and misleading...
Brian: I agree that rather it is a beaver or not is not necessary, but that doesn't make it not the case either. What about his reference of "misleading" that he made? Is this "misleading" for one to argue that? No more "misleading" to argue that is not the case when that person has never seen Castorocauda in its natural habitat. However, both sides are working off limited evidence, and all fossils are interpreted, so "misleading" maybe an oversimplification. It's more accurate to say that both sides has different interpretive lenses when they examined the fossils.
Christian: ...as it blurs a much more interesting and nuanced understanding of pre-Flood biodiversity.
Brian: Interesting, the other side can say about Christian's position that it blurs the lines between evolutionary positions and the Biblical understanding of the global Flood. At any given case, this is false. It actually is implying the either/or (false dilemma) fallacy. Either one accepts that Castorocauda's not a beaver, or you're denying the complexity of life. However, this is not the case. A person can accept the idea that Castorocauda is a beaver, and still accept the diversity of life. Just as I can accept a dog is a dog and still accept the fact that life is very diverse.
Christian: Instead of trying to force fit pre-Flood biodiversity into our modern biodiversity...
Brian: No one is doing this. All YECs, and I assume Christian as well, believes all created kinds, including rodents, were alive and created at the same time and lived with the dinosaurs, both pre-flood and post-flood eras. Thus, with the exception of speciation events within a given kind, life was just as diverse then as it is now, but one could accept that Castorocauda was a beaver and still accept that. There's nothing about the later that would make, nor mean, that he's denying that in some way.
Christian: ...let us marvel at Castorocauda as an incredibly unique part of God’s world.
Brian: I don't mind doing that, but doing so doesn't prove nor disprove it as a beaver. He seems to be assuming too much here. I can marvel at God's power, His glory, and even at his intelligence and creativity at the marvels of both the past and present world and still believe Castorocauda's a beaver. One doesn't have to do with the other.
Christian: It is a reminder of a world that no longer exists. A time when Jurassic “beavers” swam in the shadows of the giant reptiles.
Brian: Yes, and they, or some form of it, maybe swimming in waters not infested with giant lizards today. It sounds as if Christian believes that his case was strong, but I'm not convinced at all that it was. He had now reached the conclusion of his article, and now it's time for me to make mine.
Conclusion: Overall, I wasn't very impressed with the article. Some of the information was true, while much of it was faulty reasoning. Although there was at least some, I didn't see a lot of critical thinking skills. He seemed to assumed the trustworthiness of the drawings that had been made without a second thought to rather or not the researchers of the paper was even allowed to see the actual fossil, take pictures of it, or even examine it at all. He never even questioned it.
There was also clear inconsistencies with his position. What about that odd bit at the end? It sounded as if believing in Castorocauda as a beaver meant denying that God's life was created diverse. My understanding from Dr. Joel Duff was that Christian was a YEC, but some of his interpretations seemed to assumed evolutionary presuppositions. He treated the modern-day classification system as a universal fact which is also odd. Most YECs recognized that the modern-day classification system is man-made and shouldn't be assumed nor applied as universal fact for all time.
He seemed to share too many evolutionary presuppositions for my taste. Enough for me to make some uncomfortable reading on my part. As a YEC, he shouldn't share that much in common with evolutionists. It makes me wonder if he's one of those rare few YECs that believes in "walking whales" and "feathered dinosaurs" who's interpretations are sympathetic toward evolutionary beliefs. I had asked him that in the comments of his post, but, at current, he hasn't gotten back to me on that. His interpretations and arguments, to me at least, seems off a bit.
Although he includes a bio at the end of his article, along with some endnotes, he failed to source the paper he relied so much on for his information in the article itself except once, and that toward the beginning of the article on a more unrelated issue than the drawings themselves. Throughout the course of his article he made bold statements like "we can't even say it's beaver-like" but then admits to some similarities. It made me wonder if he understood what we mean by "beaver-like" in the first place.
I'm not sure why Dr. Joel Duff thought I'd be convinced by it. He presented this paper as if he thought it would refute my claims, but, on contrary, it confirmed it. He even confirmed details that I remembered Dr. Duff denying in his video. The things in which he rubberstamped the authors of that paper that both me and Christian has spoken of and is linked in the article above, seemed to point at why my uncertainty is justified, and some things only strengthened the case made by those who take the affirmative position.
Toward the end I got the impression that Christian was confident that he had made the strongest case that he could, and he probably did, but the arguments were found wanting. I was not impressed by it and do not think those who do take the affirmative position, need be threatened by this article. God bless!
Hello, and thank you for providing your perspective. Unfortunately, there are several basic inaccuracies in the article. These make it clear that the author is not familiar with the subject matter.
"Humans have lots of different types of hair on their bodies, but none are fur, so by definition of a "mammal" we wouldn't qualify..."
There is no technical distinction between hair and fur. These terms are used to colloquially distinguish human hair from the hair of other mammals. People tend to think of fur as being denser than hair. This is incorrect. Take, for example, the difference between human "hair" and chimpanzee "fur". Humans and chimpanzees have an equal distribution of hair follicles. Chimpanzees just have longer hairs. But…